"We need a president who shares our commitment to conservative principles and our respect for traditional values," Romney said. "We will uphold the sanctity of life, not abandoned or ignore it and we will defend marriage, not try to redefine it."

Romney went on to argue that "culture matters," pointing to a Brookings Institution survey often cited by former rival Rick Santorum on the campaign trail that found families who waited to have children after they got married were less likely to be poor.

"In short, culture matters and this president will protect her culture and preserve the values of hard work, personal responsibility, family and faith," Romney said. Above all, we must preserve the American spirit of one nation, under god, as president, all support the expression of religious faith in the public square."

Taking a swipe at a comment made by President Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, Romney also spoke of meeting voters who "are proud to cling to their religion and to the constitution , the american dream and the principles our nation was founded on."

Earlier in the day Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, addressed the convention in person. Romney was campaigning Friday in Ohio.

While the event was billed as a celebration of conservative social values, Romney tied social issues to the economic messaging that has dominated his campaign.

"We need a president who understands we will not have a stronger economy unless we have strong communities and strong families," Romney said.

The GOP hopeful said that while the economy might be "the best the Obama Administration can do," it was not "the best America can do."

Oh well better not point out to the “Conservatives for the Reelection of President Obama” (CREEP0) posters Obama’s additions of the “pro Gay Marriage” and “Pro taxpayer funded to Abortion up to birth” planks to the 2012 Democrat Party platform.

14
posted on 09/14/2012 7:21:45 PM PDT
by MNJohnnie
(Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)

Oh well better not point out to the Conservatives for the Reelection of President Obama (CREEP0) posters Obamas additions of the pro Gay Marriage and Pro taxpayer funded to Abortion up to birth planks to the 2012 Democrat Party platform.

And don’t bother doing your usual childish squealing. The facts are here there. That you two CREEPO posters absolutely refuse to learn anything about your god Obama that challenges your ignorance is your problem, not ours.

16
posted on 09/14/2012 7:25:11 PM PDT
by MNJohnnie
(Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)

I understand and it’s true in theory. In practice, Gov’t has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in the changing generations, and in the social order. Hence, why the gays want in on both the gov’t and religious aspects - they know marriage is a fusion of both.

It’s a twin-edged sword. Healthy social values lead to a strong economy but if the economy collapses, so will social values.

We’re looking at economic collapse very soon and I guarantee you that if that happens there will be more abortions, more apostasy, more infidelity, more murders, more robberies, more rapes and more of every type of sin under the sun because when the economy becomes “every man for himself”, man will become more craven and more desperate.

That’s why I’m voting for Romney. Whatever else his flaws, he’s our only hope of rescuing the economy that Obama will surely bring to collapse. I don’t like it. I wish the GOP had made a better choice but he’s the only hope we have left and we had all better be praying to Almighty God that He rescues us from this collapse because, under Obama, it will surely come and nobody will be spared.

You’re incorrect in dismissing my assertion which is factually and historically correct.

I have no problem with civil contracts as long as those contracts do not oblige third parties into the service of those engaged in the contract. Think about the Christian photographer that is persecuted by the state for refusing to record a homosexual event that, allegedly in the opinion of the photographer, masquerades as the sacrament of marriage.

Let’s say a homosexual couple decides to purchase a home and throw a party about their joint obligation — should they have the right to sue a photographer that refuses to videotape their party?

31
posted on 09/14/2012 8:03:44 PM PDT
by Gene Eric
(Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)

And so you reject voting for someone who at least says the right thing and is moving in the right direction against someone who is and whose party is completely in the tank for the redefinition of marriage? It is just blind foolishness to say that Romney and Obama are exactly alike. That is just objectively not true. And people like you sitting on your hands will help Obama be reelected and will hasten and solidify not on the universal redefinition of marriage, but the criminalization of beliefs and statements in favor of traditional marriage. Romney is not the one saying that businesses should get permits based on whether they toe the liberal line on “marriage”. Yes, Romney was not a profile in courage on this issue in Massachusetts, but he was not the instigator, he simply followed the court. Yes, he should have fought against it, but he was not a gay activists as some make out.

If so, then a certain socialist will win. psst... its the one who just got four people killed.

That's not my problem - I can't change that, because a vote for anyone besides the democrat or republican doesn't count. (Or so we would be led to believe.)

What I can do is vote in a way that will not cause my conscience to eat at me. Voting for a socialist would undermine that goal, so I will not be voting for either of them. If the GOP wanted my vote they wouldn't have anointed Romney (and let's be serious, he was anointed far before the primaries).

34
posted on 09/14/2012 9:41:25 PM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

I'm not falling for the "but X is worse!" this time around; the GOP did that with 2008 and are doing it now: why should I allow them to push "slightly less worse" on me and tell me it's "good"?

Further, the office of President is extraordinarily limited in power... if Congress would do their job. I'm not saying President doesn't matter, but that Congress's dereliction of duties [and accountability] is orders of magnitude greater a problem.

35
posted on 09/14/2012 9:45:47 PM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

>I'm not voting for either of the socialists. > There is only one but I know you "Conservatives for the Reelection of President Obama" (CREEPO) posters don't like having that inconvenient fact pointed out to you.

Look, I'm done with "hold your nose and vote for X" candidates; McCain was the last time that I'll do that. As much as I dislike Obama, I believe that electing Romney would be a far greater danger. Why? Because Obama now has polarized a large number of people against him, and has woken some up to the abuses of government. the change of 'D' to 'R' next to the President will encourage many of the population to "go back to sleep", believing that they did something. (i.e. it will allow a lot of things to be passed that otherwise wouldn't be, because "our guy's in.")

36
posted on 09/14/2012 9:50:50 PM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

“Lets say a homosexual couple decides to purchase a home and throw a party about their joint obligation  should they have the right to sue a photographer that refuses to videotape their party?”

No.

I think marriage is a legitimate institution which has both civil and religious repercussions. Like having children. There are religious and civil components to that. Marrying, conceiving, rearing, providing and protecting them has a religious implication, but also a civil one.

So I think the state should recognize that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that no one should be sued for refusing business.

And so you reject voting for someone who at least says the right thing and is moving in the right direction against someone who is and whose party is completely in the tank for the redefinition of marriage?

From wikipedia:

When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to same-sex marriage. "Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union," said Romney in an October 2002 gubernatorial debate. He also voiced support for basic domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. Romney won the endorsement of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, a Republican gay-rights group, who in 2005 accused him of reneging on his 2002 campaign commitment to support some benefits for gay couples. He also opposed an amendment, then before the General Court, that would have banned same-sex marriage and outlawed all domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. When campaigning in 2002, Romney's stated position was that "All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship."

Simply put, I do not trust the man. At all. I can respect one thing about Obama: he's made it clear where he stands.

It is just blind foolishness to say that Romney and Obama are exactly alike.

I didn't say they were exactly alike... but I don't believe there's any significant difference in the two, politically speaking. "Lokai is white on the right side. All of his people are white on the right side."

And people like you sitting on your hands will help Obama be reelected and will hasten and solidify not on the universal redefinition of marriage, but the criminalization of beliefs and statements in favor of traditional marriage.

Who said anything about sitting on hands? I usually sit on my butt. (And the problem is more pervasive than President; for example that NM photographer who was taken to court and reamed because she refused to participate in a homosexual wedding... all despite the State's Constitution [Art II].)

Romney is not the one saying that businesses should get permits based on whether they toe the liberal line on marriage.

Romney's also not one saying that hell limit the size and scope of government. There has never, in my political lifetime, been a republican push fo smaller, more limited government. (More limited government solves this problem, as well as many economic problems).

Yes, Romney was not a profile in courage on this issue in Massachusetts, but he was not the instigator, he simply followed the court. Yes, he should have fought against it, but he was not a gay activists as some make out.

And, looking at WaffleMaster Romney, I have to say that he'll do little to no good for advancing any of the stated Republican-party planks.

Then again, the Republican party has no intention of pursuing its stated party-planks any more than absolutely minimally necessary. How many republicans, in office, are making a push to eliminate abortion? How many are working to repeal the NFA and/or GCA? How many are seeking to limit the abuses of the commerce clause?

I'm tired of always hearing excuses for them not pursuing the party-planks.

40
posted on 09/14/2012 10:17:11 PM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

hink about the Christian photographer that is persecuted by the state for refusing to record a homosexual event that, allegedly in the opinion of the photographer, masquerades as the sacrament of marriage.

That was wrong in more ways than you know. NM Constitution:

Art II, Sec. 11. [Freedom of religion.] Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

I count at least three violations of the state constitution by that incident.

41
posted on 09/14/2012 10:29:38 PM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

It’s no sacrileg, for government marriage has not the pretence of sacredness. Marriage has been a civil institution, too, for millennia. It’s not exactly a chicken and egg situation, since religion predates politics. The religion I assume you’re talking about doesn’t, obviously. But that’s another matter. Suffice to say the two marriages, contract/special legal status and sacrament, can live side by side. They have, for thousands of years, without priests seeming too bent out of shape by it. And there is a compelling state interest in bonding men and women together.

Your argument is inapt for the basic reason that even were marriage redefined to include any old combination that popped into the government’s mind, it wouldn’t redefine marriage religiously. The sacrement would remain, if not the special status of the contract.

About the that which it defines it can redefine nonsense, I wonder if you’ve thought that through. Not that it’s nonsense that they can redefine the marriage status they’ve set up, but that that’s some sort of argument against legal marriage. You could say the same thing about criminal law. The wrongness of murderer is a religious concept. Does that mean the state shouldn’t outlaw murder for fear they may legalize it and thereby corrupt the ten commandments? No, that’s nutty.

The only relevant context is US law which supported a form of marriage tacitly compatible with Christianity which has since been “redefined” as something incompatible with Christianity.

“Suffice to say the two marriages” are not living side by side.

>> About the that which it defines it can redefine nonsense

Not only is the assertion independently accurate, in the statement context, it demonstrates an undeniable fact.

>> but that thats some sort of argument against legal marriage.

How is the opposition to the definition of marriage something that can be considered an opposition to “legal marriage”? You made a false rendering of my statement.

>> The wrongness of murderer is a religious concept. Does that mean the state shouldnt outlaw murder for fear they may legalize it and thereby corrupt the ten commandments? No, thats nutty.

Are you suggesting marriage is a crime?

The “law” redefined the value of Life.

Abortion is now the legal killing of nascent human life. In religious circles, it’s considered murder. I call it legal killing. By granting govt the authority to define human life, did we not give it the authority to redefine it; thereby granting it the authority to legally kill it?

Law is not intrinsically good; it is merely the growing necessity of a weakening society.

45
posted on 09/14/2012 11:38:54 PM PDT
by Gene Eric
(Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)

>>I sure won't be. I'm not voting for either of the socialists. > >Yes you are - by cowardly proxy...

You are free to say that, and I am free to think you a horrible, terrible person for endorsing more socialists in our society and governance. Further, your argument boils down to an admission that my votes are worthless unless I spend them on "a major candidate", and if that be the case then it follows that there cannot ever be any meaningful reform for the two parties because no candidate not of them can win, thus ensuring that the current choices are all that will remain: Democrats, who are honest in their goals, but whose goals are distasteful; and Republicans, who have good sounding goals but do not act towards them.

I'm through voting "against" someone, I'm only voting to vote "for" someone, and I am not for Romney. If you don't like it, tough; at least my conscience will not condemn me.

49
posted on 09/15/2012 8:13:02 AM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

Thats why Im voting for Romney. Whatever else his flaws, hes our only hope of rescuing the economy that Obama will surely bring to collapse. I dont like it. I wish the GOP had made a better choice but hes the only hope we have left and we had all better be praying to Almighty God that He rescues us from this collapse because, under Obama, it will surely come and nobody will be spared.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.